From: | Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Joachim Wieland <joe(at)mcknight(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Materialized view assertion failure in HEAD |
Date: | 2013-03-20 18:57:42 |
Message-ID: | 1363805862.41772.YahooMailNeo@web162902.mail.bf1.yahoo.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn(at)ymail(dot)com> wrote:
>> I want to give everyone else a chance to weigh in before I start
>> the pendulum swinging back in the other direction on OIDs in MVs.
>> Opinions?
>
> I agree that it's probably better to just disallow this, but I have to
> admit I don't like your proposed patch much. It seems to me that the
> right place to fix this is in interpretOidsOption(), by returning
> false rather than default_with_oids whenever the relation is a
> materialized view. That would require passing the relkind as an
> additional argument to interpretOidsOption(), but that doesn't seem
> problematic.
I like it. It seems to be less of a modularity violation than my
suggestion, and if we're going to have kluges for oids, we might as
well keep them together rather than scattering them around.
> Then, the parser could just error out if OIDS=anything appears in the
> options list, but it wouldn't need to actually kludge the options list
> as you've done here.
Right.
Any other comments?
--
Kevin Grittner
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2013-03-20 19:13:02 | Re: Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs |
Previous Message | Greg Stark | 2013-03-20 18:54:23 | Re: Let's invent a function to report lock-wait-blocking PIDs |